Part of this is Republicans wish to tie up Dems on the two most important matters - the Obama "tax cuts for the rich in return for Dem pork" bill and START Treaty.In hopes of running out the clock and not giving gays a moral societal endorsement by repealing DADT, and the Dream Act for illegals.

Few of the gays, progressive Jews, and hardcore liberals and feminists behind gay rights have any interest whatsoever in joining the military. But rhetorically, open gays in the military is invaluable in getting them to what they really want - "Good enough to fight and die for their country, that makes them good enough for gay marriage and full access to your boys in places like the Scouts." Getting rid of DADT has almost nothing to do with serving in the military - it is just a necessary step to getting what the gay agenda really wants - full moral acceptance, ability to get access and recruit children.Dream Act - if it passes, it sets up another 30 million 3rd Worlders swarming in for "Dream Act II".

I was listening to NPR this morning (I know, I know) and they were talking to Thune about the pork in the Spending bill, that he decried, until they mentioned the money he put in for South Dakota. Well, those were for projects he believed in. Of course. Who knew you could hear squirming on radio? So it would be interesting to hear all inserted earmarks.

It's laughable that Senators complain about having to work around Christmas. Welcome to the real world, where people actually have to do that.

The most repeated mantra these days says that sunshine is the best disinfectant in politics. So even a clerk mumbling the provisions at 3 AM is way more sunshine than the Reid-o-crats were planing to allow for their secret bill. Where is wikileaks when we need them? We may even get a Face Book comment or two out of Alaska if the information is revealed at 3 AM.

"Krauthammer said last night that he thinks this will only serve to make Republicans look bad."

LOL, no matter what the hapless R's do they look weak. You would too if you had the D's, the MSM, Hollywood, the unions (I am purposely leaving the rest out due to disgust) hating on you all the time. I say READ THE BILL and every fricking bill the dems want. Screw 'em.

In 2009 Obama grudgingly signed a $410 billion omnibus spending bill filled with earmarks but vowed, “This piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the American people have every right to expect and demand.”

So what exactly are the rules regarding reading the bill on the Senate floor? Must it be read serially, or could they bring in 100 staffers, each reading 20 pages, all at the same time? If so, they could be done in well under an hour.

What's with the senate clerks? Why aren't our senators doing the reading? Even when they have the chance to do it publicly, they still let the clerks do it. Do our senators ever read anything? What do they do all day?

Yeah, how dare the Republicans actually want a piece of legislation read before it's voted on? How absurd is that? Don't we know that "we have to pass the bill to learn what's in it" is now congressional precedent?

Actually, if I were them, I'd have Republican members rotate in the session and demand the clerks to repeat the reading of selected pages. Reading nearly 2000 pages in 50 hours means reading almost 40 pages an hour, or one page every 90 seconds. Either there isn't much on a page or they're going to have to read very fast.

Considering that most of the 5 billion in pork is for republican's that they have been trying to get through for the last 2 years. Krauthamer is right, it will succeed in making the Republicans look bad. Hmmm maybe that is a good thing, make them look like they really are, pork hungry only when it comes to what they "believe in". Bull. They are just as bad as the democrats only they are "faux" honest with the "American Public" and are concerned with our welfare. Another bull.

Pass it,dudes. It's what you fought for and won. It will taste bitter and will likely cost you more elections, but you won.

"Senate clerks are expected to read the massive bill in rotating shifts around the clock — taking breaks to drink water and pop throat lozenges — to keep legislative business on track, according to a Democratic leadership aide."

The earmark ban never fully got instituted did it? We're still cleaning out the closet, so to speak, starting the the biggest offenders on our side. Thune will try to argue that these were applied for up to two years go, but I'd say it's still bye-bye to the nomination unless he dumps them en masse...which he will not do.

Do make the mistake that just because you are, others are ideologues. You not specifically referring to you, Pig Rider (lol, jk)

Why should they start reading bills now? You and I think it's a good idea but congress and the senate haven't completely read a bill since the Nixon Administration, if then.

Pork knows no party, they are all guilty. I just think it's funny that the republicans who whine the loudest about the pork, those who are "morally opposed" to the pork are the first to complain about it being there.

First off, there is no "morals" in either the senate or the congress. Anyone who actually thinks that these people are looking out for us is plain delusional and needs some serious meds. And, it they thing that these new people coming in are any better, they are more than delusional. When I look at just the Californians who are going to be in power come January, Daryl Issa, David Drier, please. Nuff said.

The only way to stop the pork, would be to find a way for states not to send so much money to Washington in the first place. Let the states keep more of the money that is collected in taxes, then the politicians from the 57 states wouldn't have to try to pry the moneys back out from the government in Washington. It's too simple to ever work.

Anything that Dingy Harry doesn't like is a good start. but, yes, by all means, actually read the damned bill before you sign it.

Rialby said...

Krauthammer said last night that he thinks this will only serve to make Republicans look bad.

He also thinks the original deal The Zero and McConnell cut will cut taxes to the tune of $1 trillion. A big part of voter outrage was over "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it". I think this will be seen by a lot of people as a step in the right direction. Besides, didn't Bernie Sanders just hold up the Senate floor for 8 hours?

I used to think Krauthammer was a pretty astute guy, but I'm starting to wonder.

I thought HD would love that part - and we can compare it to how much the Demos want to waste. Kyl is up for re-election in '12, so he'll probably get more heat from this than HD would be willing to give any Demos.

Listened to NPR for 30 years and even donated--until the last couple of years when they fact checked everybody except Obama and Biden

Agree with Victoria about the Senate--the only senators I can respect are the very few that didnt use earmarks--most republicans and all democrats are hypocrits on the earmark issue--and I will most enthusiastically go after a lying republican as fast as I would a lying democrat. Its just that lying democrats are an even more target rich environment.

"Earmark" only means that the legislation appropriates money for a specific purpose or project, and is not a privilege that Congress had ought to give up.

What they should do is tighten up the rules so that "earmarks" can only be inserted after being publicly debated and receiving majority approval in committee, i.e., no more en masse last minute insertions by the Speaker or Majority Leader for their favorites in order to buy votes for poor legislation.

(In fact, I understand that in the infamous 2700 page "health care act," there were penciled insertions that no one now knows who wrote them!)

"I just think it's funny that the republicans who whine the loudest about the pork, those who are "morally opposed" to the pork are the first to complain about it being there."

Why? Because it logically follows that someone opposed to something would... oppose it?

Or did you miss a word somewhere and mean something else?

And really... all the Republicans should know better that to stick their special projects in there, but to be honest their constituents want the money too. That's why they need to be held up to public ridicule and held accountable by everyone else.

But honestly! Who could possibly object to efforts to shoe-horn every unrelated bit of wishful thinking into a 1924 page bill that no one will read and certainly no one will winnow? Only partisan hacks and Tea Partiers, no doubt.

Garage: please dont single out deMint when there are 99 other assholes out there--if deMint put in earmarks then he should go--there were damn few senators that had zero earmarks--they are my heroes--the rest? fuck em all.

It's the taxpayers vs. the taxeaters and the country is breaking apart politically and culturally. The odd thing is the taxeaters don't even have to fight for their side because they can rely on a large cadre of smug, elitist far left liberals who work primarily in higher education, media, govt and public schools.

for the commentariat--just so you know Garage and I have been friends on an unrelated level--I lost a bet to him bt he has sent me wisconsin brats and cheese--point being, I think: we dont agree on politics but can still be very good friends--think about it

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has introduced a measure aimed at keeping the federal government funded for a couple more months. McConnell’s continuing resolution would mean that the incoming Congress would be tasked with passing a budget, something lawmakers failed to do this year.

The single-page proposal from the Kentucky Republican is meant to counter a nearly 2,000 page ‘omnibus’ package from Democrats that would fund all twelve of President Obama’s cabinets through the end of the 2011 fiscal year at a cost of over $1 trillion total.

Hey listening to NPR isn't all bad. Those of you who think that they are some commie left wing group do not actually listen. I know you don't.

You're wrong about that. I listen to NPR every day, and their treatment of the Tea Party movement is laughably biased. "Some people say they're racist ignorant rednecks, but others believe they're just fat pasty white people who don't realize they're actually parasites."

Serious? No, not really. The bill that's probably going to actually pass is larded up with McConnell's earmarks as much as anyone else's. The clean bill is just theater, and if he thought it actually had a chance of passing he would never have introduced it.

Eric,I think Coburn & DeMint are serious about reducing spending. Hatch, to his credit, withdrew all earmarks after the election.

The Coburn amendment would have led to:* a 15 percent cut in the budgets for the White House and congressional offices, saving $3.8 billion over five years* a three-year pay freeze for members of Congress, saving $6 million over five years* a 10 percent reduction of the federal workforce, saving $13.2 billion over five years* a 20 percent reduction in the federal motor vehicle fleet, saving $1.5 billion over five years* a 10 percent reduction in voluntary additional payments to the United Nations, saving $1.5 billion over five years

Pure, crass, bare-knuckle politics is why. So the minority party can maneuver, buy time and hopefully affect the outcome of this monstrosity. Quite simply a parliamentary tactic to force the majority to assent to a continuing resolution bump it down the road into the next congress.

appeal to idiots that think this is some sort of defiant and courageous stand against....something?

Um, because Reid just caved!

Speaking now on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) says he is “sorry and disappointed” to announce that he does not have the votes for the omnibus spending package. Instead, he will work with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) to draft a temporary continuing resolution to fund the government into early next year.

Reid says nine Republican senators approached him today to tell him that while they would like to see the bill passed, they could not vote for it. He did not reveal the names of the nine. A top Senate source tells National Review Online that “it looks like Harry Reid buckled under the threat of Republicans reading [the bill] aloud.”

The Democrats just pulled the bill! Obama refused to threaten to veto it, even though it was filled with earmarks. This could have been his first post-election victory, and now it belongs to the Republicans.

I say read every bill. Maybe they won't be 2000 pages a piece in the future. At least it will reduce the number of laws passed, and that's a great thing. Corrupt fools passing laws should be slowed down anyway possible.

Nobody will remember Reid not getting 60 votes for an omnibus bill, that frankly hardly anyone knows what it even is. But they will remember DADT, which appears to be going bye-bye. No thanks to knuckle-dragging, slant-headed neanderthals on your side of the aisle. Well, all except maybe 3-4 that are human. Haha.

Nobody will remember Reid not getting 60 votes for an omnibus bill, that frankly hardly anyone knows what it even is. But they will remember DADT, which appears to be going bye-bye. No thanks to knuckle-dragging, slant-headed neanderthals on your side of the aisle. Well, all except maybe 3-4 that are human. Haha.

Ha Ha, yourself. After this don't count on anything. Ron Wyden is gone for surgery, so Dingy Harry is in trouble. And, yes, a lot of people will remember him, and all the little Demos who stood with him, spitting in the face of the American public. This is not a good day for the Demos.

I'm willing to bet he's heard more than a few Senators say they don't want to stay in DC over the holidays. And now we've got similar fights over START, and the House versions of DREAM and the tax bill.

You can also bet all those Americans (all those slant-headed, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals who make this country go, if the damned Democrats and their small c communist supporters will get out of the way) who don't want this country's defense to look like Holland's are going to refocus their energies. It may be hip in some quarters to say one doesn't care, but most Americans are against it.

"Read the bill, sure. Read the bill ALOUD -- what's the point in the absence of blind senators"

In the absence of a test assuring familiarity with the bill, it sort of forces the issue even if the persons who should have read it don't sit in an listen. It illustrates the fact that even the staffers who would be expected to read bills that our elected officials don't bother to read personally, probably haven't read it *either*.

But mostly it illustrates and makes unavoidable the issue of these huge pieces of hodge-podge legislation. A budget or spending bill is probably going to be large in any case, but the Congress oversteps badly when each little pet project is stuck in there and not even counting the "earmarks" that give a state money and then presumes to tell them exactly what they can do with it. *This* project. *That* road. If the governor would spend the money on something else first, then probably those things ought not be funded. Paying favors is very bad government.

If these things, the add-ons or the ear-marks will stand alone then they should stand alone. If they can not stand alone then they should not stand.

I doubt it. There aren't many Americans with strong feelings about it *now*, and those numbers are only going to shrink once it is repealed.

It doesn't help that joining the military is widely viewed as a sacrifice rather than an honor or a benefit. "Denying blacks a quality education" pushes buttons that "denying gays the right to get shot at by Arabs" doesn't.

The Tea Party folks deserve some credit here. They really came through with keeping the pressure on. Remember, it was Republicans keeping Republicans in line. DeMint's threat helped too.

Harry Reid comes out of this debacle looking real bad, not to mention weak and ineffectual. Frankly, he got beaten like a red headed stepchild.

I'm all for DADT being repealed. If it's passage is the "sacrifice" play that torpedoes DREAM and START, then even better. Repeal of DADT will happen eventually anyway. I'm thinking a lot of Republicans would like to remove it as an issue at this point.

Permitting homosexual behavior among enlisted men and women will be disastrous to morale, hygiene and readiness. That's why it needs to be opposed. The fact that Liberals push their little social experiments so far that they end up hurting our soldiers is a crime. Don't fall for it.

If it's passage is the "sacrifice" play that torpedoes DREAM and START, then even better.

I heard a DREAMster make a good point today. Consider that the illegal kids were brought over by their parents, not by their own doing: If a cop pulled a parent over for speeding, would he write the kid in the back seat a ticket?

"Read the bill ALOUD -- what's the point in the absence of blind senators"

I would assume the points would be to make sure that someone has read it, and to slow it down enough so that what is in there can be processed enough to debate.

But you know what would be much better than a reading of the bill? A quiz or test. Not on interpretations of the bill, but of actual provisions. Don't get a passing grade on the quiz? Then you cannot vote on the bill.

That would be awesome.

Until them, make them read the bill so it is all public and they can get pressured on the less savory elements before voting.

Bullshit. These are the same arguments used over 60 years ago to prevent racial integration of the armed forces, and you know it. It was also used when women were allowed to attend the service academies. It's gotten old. The same arguments are churned up time and time again.

It's gonna happen whether you like it or not. May as well get it done. There will indeed be problems with repealing DADT, but they will be addressed and dealt with, because that is what the military does.

I mean, really? What do you really care if some "queer" wants to serve his/her country and get shot at by mujahadeen?

I heard a DREAMster make a good point today. Consider that the illegal kids were brought over by their parents, not by their own doing: If a cop pulled a parent over for speeding, would he write the kid in the back seat a ticket?

Actually, that's a pretty stupid point, and has no relevance to the issue.

If ICE or Border Patrol captured the illegal with children in the back of a packed truck in the middle of the dessert on the verge of death because the coyotes just left them there with the padlocks on, I would hope the kids wouldn't get a ticket, but I would hope they'd be taken away from their parent(s) for abuse, endangerment and neglect for having put them in that position.

Be that as it may, DREAM is just another way of codifying the new American slave class, and as such, should be taken out back and shot like the sick dog it is.

Bullshit. These are the same arguments used over 60 years ago to prevent racial integration of the armed forces, and you know it. It was also used when women were allowed to attend the service academies. It's gotten old. The same arguments are churned up time and time again.

It's gonna happen whether you like it or not. May as well get it done. There will indeed be problems with repealing DADT, but they will be addressed and dealt with, because that is what the military does.

I mean, really? What do you really care if some "queer" wants to serve his/her country and get shot at by mujahadeen?

That's right. Let's make it easier for the PFC. Bradley Mannings to betray their country.

Its not like there isn't precedent; four of the Cambridge Five were homosexuals and British intelligence never recovered from their actions.

In the Greek culture, it was accepted socially, but a man was expected to grow out of it.

Not sure Julie was, his troops called him The Bald Adulterer and sang a couplet about how husbands should hide their wives when the army came to town.

In any case, armies allowed all sorts of camp followers in those days. We've realized it's a detriment.

PS Notice how only the Lefties here are saying most Americans "don't have strong feelings" about it? Yesterday, it was most Americans were for it. If urban homosexuals were suddenly found to bloc vote Republican, bet there would be a lot less interest in this.

"Bullshit. These are the same arguments used over 60 years ago to prevent racial integration of the armed forces, and you know it. It was also used when women were allowed to attend the service academies. It's gotten old. The same arguments are churned up time and time again."

And yet, when one sees first hand the twisting that the military has to do to integrate women it seems ridiculous in extreme to claim that no twisting will occur to integrate gays.

I'm very much in favor of women serving but I am honest about what that means. It starts on day 1 when the female recruits make beds because there are not enough women arrived yet, and day 2 when female recruits make beds because there are not enough women arrived yet, and day 3 when female recruits make beds because not enough women arrived yet... before the unit is full and basic training begins. Or if not that, then something else. And it really doesn't end. Separate accommodations, privacy, assignments, and different rules. And they are rules that supersede military effectiveness and troop safety. The question is if it's worth it or not.

Likely enough gays should be openly serving, but anyone who thinks its just like sticking people of different races into the same group shower is lying to someone.

Man, this is a scream! House votes to extend Bush tax cuts at a greater margin than they did 10 years ago! Sucks to be a Democrat right now. Holding majorities in both the House and Senate, they got brutalized by the Republicans today in so many ways it's hard to know where to start...

Personally, I think every single bill should be read in its entirety with at least a majority of legislators present before it can proceed to a vote.

If it's too big to read and understand in a reasonable period of time, it's too big to be law.

Agreed, and I like the idea about a quiz that someone else stated upthread.

I also think the concept of "riders" should be eliminated; a bill should be about one thing, without a bunch of unrelated items hidden in there. And if this means that Congress passes fewer bills, all the better; they'll spend less of our money that way.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was introduced in the House on December 14, 2000; introduced in the Senate on December 15, 2000, cleared Congress that same day, and was signed into law December 21, 2000.

Then-Congressman DeMint did not complain "They should not be able to pass this kind of legislation in a lame-duck Congress." (The GOP lost their Senate majority that November.)

Not to change the subject, but it is not illegal for gays to join the military. So no one is denying gays the right to be shot at by Islamist radicals. (Sub point to note: All Arabs are not Muslims. All Muslims are not Arabs. All Muslims are not Islamist radicals.)

There are gays in the military.

I thought the deal on DADT was that it none of anyone's business what one's sexual preference is, and one is not supposed to ask. Or tell.

One is also supposed to be operate under the rules of the UCMJ while a volunteer member of the US military. (Right?)

So is the problem that John can't have George's picture in his locker or on his desk?

How do the Israelis handle it? (Although a comparatively small military.)

Conscious decision not to regulate credit default swaps, which ultimately pulled down AIG among other companies. It had been piggybacked to the budget. Nobody knew WTF it meant, other than Phil Gramm thought it would be a good idea. Haven't heard from him lately.

Man, this is a scream! House votes to extend Bush tax cuts at a greater margin than they did 10 years ago! Sucks to be a Democrat right now. Holding majorities in both the House and Senate, they got brutalized by the Republicans today in so many ways it's hard to know where to start...

“After exposing his party, the White House and himself to an avalanche of bad press and bipartisan criticism over the earmark-stuffed omnibus spending bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a sort of political Dunkirk moment, gave up and fled. . . . It is also a major win for the opponents of ObamaCare, who halted a billion dollars in funding for the legislation that they aim to repeal. It is also, of course, a defeat for the earmarkers, the business-as-usual crowd and Harry Reid.”

No thanks to knuckle-dragging, slant-headed neanderthals on your side of the aisle. Well, all except maybe 3-4 that are human. Haha.

garage I'm curious. You claimed all your friends are conservative rednecks and you dont' hang out with liberals. What do those guys think of DADT? Are any of them Tea Party folks and what do they think of you believing that they are knuckle-dragging, slant-headed neanderthals?

Screw the earmarks. The big problem is they are (were) locking in an approximately 25% increase in the baseline budget. That is real money, and must be rolled back if we are to improve our debt situation.

FLS, you couldn''t be more wrong. Take a peek at the report posted at AoSHQ. Here's a tidbit:

"In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion."

Don't pride yourself on Republican frugality. The first news article I clicked on, from Jackson, Miss, showed that Mississippi's two Republican Senators requested almost a billion in earmarks, all by themselves.

Don't pride yourself on Republican frugality. The first news article I clicked on, from Jackson, Miss, showed that Mississippi's two Republican Senators requested almost a billion in earmarks, all by themselves.

In other words, they requested almost all of it.

So you're holding up these two Reps to say "Seeee! Just as bad!!!"

Really?

Dude, trash the Dems. They sold the left down the river just as bad as the Reps sold the right a few years ago. (And plenty of cons/Reps here bitched about it.)

If these dunderheads had fixed on actually repairing the economy, rather than graft and socialism? We'd probably be doing a lot better now, and they'd have two years to do whatever they want, including all the graft and socialism they wanted.